tv [untitled] January 22, 2012 10:48pm-11:18pm PST
i appreciate your doing that. questions, comments, thoughts for the commission? >> were there any surprises when he ran these numbers? compared with other comparative literature? >> fundamentally, the results by summarized were not surprising, but greatly. the interesting thing at the beginning of the study was the minimum temperatures, we had to calibrate, and they were already going down. not insignificantly. it was something that other people were seeing, but we did not even know about it until we got into this study. it had to do with the timing of snowmelt and how quickly it got during -- got cold during the night. i do know if it was shocking, but it seemed to come out of the global warming profile. >> temperatures are going down? >> what i meant was going up. >> that would be opposite, yes.
[laughter] >> maximum daily temperatures, no chain so far. >> killing up to what? >> the average used to be in one of my charts. it is going up by 0.8, or one degree, total. not insignificant for the last 50 years. in terms of calibrating the model, it is interesting and smart. >> i thought that i saw something in here that talked about how the model hypothesis is that seasons will start coming earlier than later. that rainfall will be coming earlier, said that the spring will come sooner. that does that seem to be what is happening now or last year. seems to me that there was a leader seasonal shift. is that one of the things that was confirmed or calibrated?
>> generally, we would expect to see is more precipitation falling as rain that as snowe, overall. precipitation falling as rain rather than snow earlier in the year. snow on the ground melting in becoming streams flow, rather than staying as snowpack sooner. what we see in any individual year, like this high and dry december, some of the streaming events are seen all over the country. the texas drought last year, the heat wave in moscow couple of years ago, are difficult to attribute to climate change. scientists are working on that. it is a mixed bag. i heard jane at the conference a couple of years ago and should be some of the extreme events this year, which we have seen more than usually do, to climate
change. but it is hard to look at one year. that is more like the weather, a short-term phenomenon that we already see in the climate that be influenced by climate change, but it is hard to tease out the differential of fact. what we're seeing this year as opposed to what 5 unchanged brings on average is difficult to decide. spring-like conditions will be happening earlier in the year under climate change and other scenarios. >> i have a another question about the slots that you had on commission. the one of those represent where we will be of having set -- if nothing happens if we do not change course? >> the red one, the bad one was a2. that is under the fourth assessment report in climate change that came out in 2007. that is not the worst case scenario.
the scenarios are changing their names, just to make everyone confused. economic activity is done, but we have been running at a higher level than the worst-case scenarios that were outlined in the fourth assessment in 2007. >> so, the higher emissions scenario was a best case scenario? >> it was worse than the red. it is about on track. 15 degrees fahrenheit is odd. that is completely different. >> so, what are we going to do? specific to the puc and the water supply, what should we be doing to prepare?
>> we should be doing a lot of what we are doing, i think. obviously, i think that. i said it in the memo, i think we are judiciously increasing the sophistication of our analysis at every step. but are not reliefers the doctors. although the general managers leadership under the alliance and a lot of the work done at the national level, we are seen as national adapters. we are taking a step by step. we are not the first person to buy and iphone, is by example. the advantage of that is we are not paying $600 for something that may not work as well, and the other thing is we may be benefiting from earlier examples. they came and talked about their earliest assessment from 2003, 2007, etc.
hours -- i can say this because they are not here -- will be better than that. we are learning from their benchmarks. in this process, which tells us the implications of these changes in runoff only. step three will initiate but we were not trying to answer here, including what is likely, like a scenario saying that we are doing well or badly. we need to know at some point which one of those is going to be actionable. which one of those are we going to react to? that is not today. we have time to come up with a good answer to that. that is what we are going to do. that is the trajectory of our analysis, which i think is going on -- going along extremely
well. >> lessons like one year? three years? let's face to is the water supply runoff scenario change in 2012. the assessment itself, we are scoping it right now. i would predict a good 18 month project, to be minimum. that would start depending on when we assemble the right team of scientists and experts that we need to help us to evaluate the state of the science and issues a engaged in that. i hope that that would start as soon as possible in 2012. >> well we are also talking about, and this is also davids' issue, the no regrets policy program is giving us another reliable system for whatever happens. we are not wasting something on the program that will not be of
use, depending on what happens with this. it also makesthis makes it juste where. something has been like that for a year or two and that is a long-term view of the world that we have to live with. >> will there be some more specific ideas or programs in response to this analysis and the data that continues to be collected? for example, some storage facilities on the ground that will help as we see less and less water beyond our traditional conservation? >> there will. all lot of what we're working on is the sources improvement program. this is what you should do regardless of what your view is
in terms of the climate change. we probably will not be able to link them directly to one view of climate change. this is the shorter view before we say this is our selected path forward. >> as part and parcel of our water supply planning generally as we have been doing it so far and looking at demand projections as well as what has happened because of either water that has to be dedicated to fisheries. we have had both things driving that. as we look at what we do to balance our supply equation, this is a key part of that.
>> for example, december was the third driest months since we started recurring dutch recording it. in response to that come up our deliveries were up 20 million gallons a day over last december. that is a huge change. >> are there any other thoughts, questions? >> thank you for your good work. >> i work here in the city and i had the pleasure of working on climate issues. i really welcome the opportunity to talk about two things. one is to present a report to you, the other is to discuss the
one that you just heard. what do we do about climate change? we completed a review of what 12 cities are doing to adapt to climate change. we have looked at big cities and small. cities across the country to look at what they're doing to adapt to climate change. you have done a lot of things to be in the forefront. the modelling work that you are discussing here today, retrofitting or waste water treatment systems. you have really been among the
leaders looking at those issues. i want to suggest that you take a look at this report to see what other cities are doing to continue to bolster your effort. my first goal is to think you for your work and give you support. i wanted to talk briefly about the importance of the modeling and really to step back and talk about why this is so critical. literally for thousands of years the foundation has been to assume that rivers in the future will behave the way of visions -- rivers in the past. that is no longer true. this is really the bedrocks of management. when this is not true, you can engage in strategies that you know our wise measures that are the smart thing to do.
the other thing you can do is to develop better tools to make more specific decisions in the future. that is what your staff is working on. you need to step back and look at climate scenarios, look at temperatures. in much more sophisticated foundation for future making. we need to figure out how to operate the systems. i am simply your eye on this issue to urge you to move forward and i look forward to seeing this report when it is finalize. really, to continue to work with you and working with your staff on adaptation issues. >> thank you. this is a great report. >> i am shocked on page 91.
i've never seen a clear los angeles the like that. >> if you could provide a link to the secretary for this report so that we can include it in the minutes, that would be good. thank you. >> is it any other public comment? seeing none, would you call item 10. >> workshop and discussion presentation on repair replacement bowles agency wide. >> we are talking about the budget coming up. you should never expect to be the masters of every detail but there are some overriding things that are happening in this budget. this will make a big difference
in terms of how much money is spent and the rate impact of those decisions. the single biggest items is the level of speed with which we start to pick up our repair and replacement likes. we wanted to have our discussion today with you. >> thank you for that introduction. >> thank you. this is to talk about relative priorities. we would like to illustrate the water mains in san francisco and really talk about what level do you want to start funding in terms of the replacements in san
francisco and this has a direct effect and your budget. this will take rate increases. we're talking about three different programs, but the sioux were system replacement. the new system is spot stores. we have been doing in this in the past and we want to accelerate the program. just remind you once again that most of our water mains are small and we have about 1,200 miles. there are about 1,300 miles an streets in san francisco. almost every street has a water main on in it. this is a graphic that mr. ritchie will be using on tuesday. we wanted to put it up there to
show you that this is the area where you want to be. this would be a good repair or replacement rate. what we have our two proposed alternatives. with those alternatives, you can see a â. this will come to the same age at the same time and it will have an accelerated program. the source system, about 850 miles of sewers. the majority of them are less than 36 inches. there are large systems that are conveyance systems. 850 miles of stores in san francisco. an illustration showing among we
do about 6 miles for you now. two different replacement rates. the big take away is that you have this increase in spending for several years. at 11 miles per year, you have this steady state of spending that you would have to have ongoing for a longer amount of time. this is the hidden story that we have. you have given us resources and we have used those too increase the miles of sewer inspection in san francisco. lo and behold, we find defects in the sewers. . we are doing about 150 miles of sewer assessments in san francisco. we are on a six year cycle now of looking for all of our sewers and what condition they are
arraigned. as we find these things that have to be fixed, we actually do fix them but we don't have enough money to fix all the spot repairs. >> what are the natures of the repairs? >> this could be one section of a sewer pipe. we are talking about several blocks long. these roughly average about $25,000 purses a block of sewer replacement. >> have you found that these are longer lasting? >> this is amazing what they're pretty resilient at this point and time but there is a program to keep doing this. >> before you go beyond that slide, we dealt with a different
curve and that was the age of the pipe and the assumption was that tribes that it old fail. in fact, they don't fail like they said, they fail may be a century later. this is unobserved defect -- this is donan observed defects. but the other tool is evaluated based on risk. -- >> the other tool is evaluating based on risk. have seen actual visual inspections the changes the whole paradigm and that becomes part of the tool will we go on
and say, well, we have visual defects rather than waiting for it to collapse in these little pot holes. in water main replacements, we have been looking at about 6 miles per year and we have been doing this through 2018. traditionally, we have cash funded water main replacements. we will move into 15 miles of water main replacements in san francisco. again, to get us into that great area, we are in the state of balance which would be a acceptable. it means that our annual service will rise in 2015 and the average monthly bill will go up. the service will rise and 2022 because we have issued the
bonds and the monthly bill will go up $6 and that includes those that you have had to conserve as rate increases. you can get a sense of the budget miles over the past several years and we will be going from 6 to 15. what this means is that you have cash verses that funding. if you consider this and this is part of your discussions are part of the budget, this would increase by $218 million and this would get you to $508 million. sioux were replacement goes along the same lines. you made a really wise decision in proving the resources to do the condition assessment. we are moving into the 150 mile stage. we are looking at going from a
capital plan to 15 miles per year. when the debt service is taken into consideration, the average monthly sioux were bill would go up by $2 in 2015 and again in 2020 to. you can see the 15-year increments going out over the 10-year. the increase is only 147 million on the suicide because you have a lot of cash their. this is over 10 years. this is the source spot repair. this is probably the first time we have ever seen this and this is something to follow along. we actually do sioux were spot repairs. they are budgeted in the operating budget in the department of public works at $6
million per year. they take care of about 300 spot repairs in san francisco. we did an infusion of cash in fiscal year 2011-2012 to try to get down the backlog of spot repairs. but we are proposing as part of the long-term program is that we would actually fund $8 million a year of additional repairs for the next 10 years. our goal would be to actually get to about 700 or so repairs a year in san francisco. now i will throw in the confounding factor and that is the 2011 department of public works bond that was approved in november. this is a program managed by the department of public works and what it will do is actually increase the amount of street
restoration and paving in san francisco. they will go to 60 miles a year and that will continue for the next three years. there is a list of streets that will actually be restored or repaved over the next three years. they will be putting in ramps and also sidewalk improvements. some of the things you would like to see. we need to coordinate this with our repair and replacement program. this is one of the biggest cost that we have which is restoring the streets. this has gotten more restrictive. sometimes you have to restore the curve and that is a big thing that will cost us. there is a lot of pressure for them and us to make sure that we
are doing the same streets. this is a good thing for us. there are some trade-offs that you need to make. this does have this your rate impact as you would like to increase the amount of the main replacement. the question is cash verses debt funding. if you want to do with debt funding, there will be rate increases that you have to anticipate. that is where we left it. usually when you present the budget, each would present the budget on their capital program. thank you.
"we will be giving you more information and you can see some dollar amounts and the percentage of rate increases. >> thank you. i think what i would be interested in knowing is based on proposition be, is it $248 million? >> over three years. the decisions are being made i would assume almost immediately and i would be interested in knowing because you would like to prioritize. there would be a reason to start somewhere rather than somewhere else. i would like to know how that would take place and how that is taking place and whether we have sufficient influence to try to
guide the process or if there is some kind of bureaucratic issue that may be would be the subject matter of a conversation that took place in the future. can you develop on the decision making process as it relates to putting that money to work? >> there is a list of streets that they have laid out over the next three years. there is a city process that was involved in the discussion about how we coordinate. we set up the task force to sit down. we have been met once too hopefully come to a conclusion that we can coordinate our activities together. we have the year one list that we want to do. we want to look at this your
replacements. we're looking at their perspective. these look like we can coordinate on it. that discussion is going on. we can go back on how that is working and it really is a coordination effort. >> they have criteria and maps. >> should we assume that decisions that we are preparing to make it through the budget process would be contingent on, will we be directed? >> the department of public works will be doing the maps. >> the real issue is that they will pay of those streets anyway. the issue is that if they are ng